Private Rented Sector Housing

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Gary Streeter

Tuesday 15th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Gary. The debate is incredibly important. The issue does not get enough attention in this place but, as all Members will know, it is of huge and growing importance to many of our constituents, not least given the size of the private rented sector and its ongoing—and, indeed, accelerating—expansion.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) on securing the debate and on the way he opened it. As always, he spoke with great force and sincerity on behalf of his constituents, and brought alive the reality of the appalling conditions faced by far too many of those renting privately.

Following his impassioned remarks, we heard a series of incredibly powerful contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Westminster North (Ms Buck), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), as well as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Their contributions were all directly informed by their respective constituency experiences and the obviously huge housing caseloads each of them deals with on a weekly basis.

It is not in dispute that some of the worst standards in housing are in the private rented sector. It goes without saying that that statement should not be taken to imply that every privately rented property is in bad condition, or that all private landlords fail their tenants. I also fully accept—no doubt it will be referenced in the remarks the Minister’s officials have prepared for him—that, measured by either the decent homes standard or the housing health and safety rating system category 1 hazards, the absolute number and proportion of poor quality private rented homes continues to fall, albeit steadily rather than drastically, as part of a half century if not longer of improvement in housing standards.

There is still clearly an acute problem for those private sector tenants who are the most vulnerable, have little or no purchasing power, are increasingly concentrated at the lower end of the private rental market and—as anecdotal evidence would suggest—are also increasingly concentrated geographically. However, we still need the Department to provide accurate data on precisely how private rented homes are distributed across the country.

As we have heard from all speakers today, for tenants forced to live in homes that do not meet the decent homes standard and that often have a category 1 hazard what should be a place of refuge and comfort is instead a source of daily anxiety and, in many cases, torment and misery. Whether they wake up every day to mould, vermin or dangerous hazards, today’s debate has provided yet more evidence that substandard private rented housing takes a huge toll on the physical and mental health of those in it and prevents families and children—it is this I find the most saddening—from flourishing as they should be able to.

I know the Under-Secretary cares deeply about improving housing standards and life chances, but it should be a real source of shame to him and his colleagues that after 12 years of Conservative-led Government, one in five homes in the private rented sector still does not meet the decent homes standard and one in 10 has a category 1 hazard posing a risk of serious harm. The Minister and his colleagues should be agitating week in, week out for the changes necessary to bear down decisively on this problem, and for those changes to be enacted as a matter of urgency. What makes the situation all the more frustrating is that it is patently obvious what the required changes are and, indeed, there is broad consensus across the House on most of them.

I leave aside the more fundamental issue of a striking lack of decent, secure and genuinely affordable social homes to rent, which is in many ways at the heart of the problem, and will instead use the time left to explore in a little more detail the three most important areas where change in the private rented sector is required: standards, enforcement and rights. Each has already featured in the debate.

First, on standards, a technical but crucial issue is that the Government need to review and strengthen national standards for rented homes, and to do so at pace. The decent homes standard, which provides for general benchmarking, has not been updated since 2006. It is welcome that it is being reviewed, but the process needs to be expedited. Will the Minister tell us when the Government expect the decent homes standard review to complete? The HHSRS is also under review and we need the conclusions of that exercise to be published as soon as possible. Will the Minister give us an update on when he expects that review to complete?

My final point on standards is that, in the levelling-up White Paper, the Government committed to exploring

“proposals for new minimum standards for rented homes”.

Obviously, we have no issue with that in principle, but will the Minister give us some sense of how such minimum standards would interact with the updated decent homes standard and the HHSRS? The last thing we need is to make the current regime even more complex and challenging to administer.

Secondly, the Government must start taking enforcement more seriously. A number of contributors have talked about the importance of enforcement. The Minister could emerge from Marsham Street in a month’s time with proposals for the most robust set of national standards possible, but it would count for little if those standards could not then be enforced in practice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North mentioned, two changes need to be made if the Government are to facilitate the proper enforcement of standards across the country.

The first is to give local authorities the means to enforce standards properly themselves. At present, enforcement of standards across the country is incredibly patchy and tenants face a postcode lottery as a result. Those councils that could do more with the resources they have but are not need to be encouraged to do so, but the problem in large part is the product of central Government funding cuts over many years. Does the Minister accept as much? If so, what plans do the Government have to provide local authorities with the funding and support they need to enforce regulations, as well as enabling, rather than frustrating, those authorities that wish to adopt landlord licensing schemes?

The second change is to enable tenants themselves to enforce standards. I appreciate that the issue lies outside of the Minister’s departmental responsibilities, but does he accept that unless legal aid is reintroduced for disrepair claims so that lower income tenants can seek to enforce existing standards—let alone future standards—progress on his objectives is likely to be held back?

Thirdly, the Government must act now to give renters more rights and better protection, so that they can seek redress for poor quality conditions and disrepair without fear of retribution. There is clear consensus across the House that we need to overhaul the outdated legislation that applies to the private rented sector. However, it is now three years since the Conservative Administration of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) promised to abolish section 21 no-fault evictions. There has been a lot of talk about the White Paper today but, perhaps most disappointingly, we were promised a renter’s reform Bill in the Queen’s Speech last year yet as we approach the end of the Session, not only is there no sign of that Bill but we are now told to expect a White Paper in its place in the spring.

Of course, we need to ensure that any proposals for reform are considered and properly scrutinised, but tenants need protection now. They cannot afford to wait 12, 16, 18, 24 months or longer for the White Paper to be published and consulted on and for legislation to be brought forward. Given the implications for tenants suffering now, I would like to hear from the Minister why, having committed to a Bill in this Session, the Government have now determined that a White Paper will do instead.

To conclude, the House must act to improve conditions for the millions of private renters trapped in substandard housing, and must act quickly. Tenants living in squalid conditions cannot wait years while the Government slowly analyse yet more reviews and engage in more consultations and delay. We know what needs to happen; it is now a question of delivering it. I look forward to hearing from the Minister that the Government are not only seized by the urgency of the problem but, as a result, will look again at how the changes that need to be made can be enacted quickly.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

I remind the Minister to leave three minutes at least for Ian Byrne to wind up.

Fire Safety and Cladding

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Gary Streeter

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) on securing this timely debate and on his wider efforts to co-ordinate Members who are concerned that the Government should step up and do more. Two hundred and sixty-four days have now passed since we watched flames engulf the Grenfell tower block in north Kensington, yet on private freehold developments across the country hundreds of thousands of residents still live with the knowledge that their homes are covered in lethal material. New Capital Quay, a vast 980-home development in my constituency, is only one of hundreds of such cases, although it is perhaps the highest-profile.

Cladding on the site failed tests carried out by the Department in July last year, and eight months on that cladding and insulation remain in place with no timescale for their removal and replacement, and with an inadequate and expensive waking watch fire safety patrol still in place. Residents are left in limbo while the freeholder, Galliard Homes, and the National House Building Council tussle over whether there was a breach of building regulations at the time of construction, and about who is liable—this tussle might be settled out of court, but it might ultimately be resolved only through lengthy litigation.

Residents stuck in the middle of that messy squabble are terrified at the thought that their families are not safe, and leaseholders are anxious that they will be hit by the full costs of the work. At a public meeting last week, one elderly resident told me that she is resigned to the fact that she will not make it out of the building if there is a fire, even with the waking watch in place.

What has been the Government’s position throughout? It has amounted to little more than a muffled and infrequent plea to the private companies involved not to pass on costs to leaseholders. No attempt has been made to ensure that the dangerous cladding is removed as a matter of urgency. In many ways, however, that is no surprise because the Government are deeply compromised on fire safety. In 2013, they failed to act on recommendations made after the 2009 Lakanal House disaster, and they chose not to rewrite procedural guidance set out in Approved Document B. They did nothing to prevent the installation of combustible polyethylene ACM cladding of the type found on New Capital Quay.

Presumably on the basis of advice from the BRE Group, in 2006 the Government opened the door to combustible insulation material such as the K15 Kingspan insulation found on New Capital Quay. That was approved as compliant through testing, when previously it had been impossible to meet the guidance by that route.

The Building Control Alliance determined to introduce a new route to compliance through desktop studies, but as the market became increasingly competitive its members began to approve cladding without even the need for such a desktop study. It is hard to believe that the Government were not aware that that was taking place, yet they failed to amend Approved Document B to respond to it.

If one steps back from all the legal wrangling between private companies about cladding and insulation on private freehold developments, one notes the flawed nature of the building regulations regime, the inadequacy of procedural guidance within that regime, and the passive response of Government to the behaviour of the combustibles industry since 2014. That explains why dangerous, combustible cladding and insulation of the kind that surrounds the homes of my constituents were signed off as compliant.

Let me be clear: the fault does not lie only with Conservative Governments since 2010, because successive Governments have failed to ensure that the building regulation regime was fit for purpose. However, the Government have a duty to act—if not a legal duty, then certainly a moral one—and they can do so speedily in a way that will make a big difference to my constituents by issuing clear, prescriptive advice about the final date by which dangerous combustible cladding must be removed from developments such as New Capital Quay. That is the least my constituents, and others across the country in a similar situation, deserve.

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

I thank all hon. Members for collaborating on timing.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Matthew Pennycook and Gary Streeter

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 15th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Temporary Chair]

Order. Thirteen colleagues, and possibly more, have caught my eye with 130 minutes to go before we conclude at 10 o’clock. You can do the maths, and it is not that great. Please be mindful of others, and let us not have too many interventions. Let those who wish to speak, speak.

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), and I welcome the fact that he thinks this is a debate about means not ends. The debate should continue in that constructive spirit. I am particularly interested in his ideas for an environment Bill, presumably to be introduced before exit day, and his ideas about governance, which we will be debating in Committee on a later day.

I rise to speak to new clause 67 because I have not been entirely convinced by the right hon. Gentleman. The aim of the clause is simple: to ensure that the environmental principles set out in article 191(2) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union—the precautionary principle, the principle that preventive action should be taken to avert environmental damage, the principle that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source, and the polluter pays principle—continue to be recognised and applied after exit day, which is important. In that respect, new clause 67 is broadly similar in its intent to new clauses 60 and 28. If either of those new clauses is pressed to a vote, we would be minded to support them.

The environmental principles set out in article 191 of the TFEU form an essential component of environmental law; they are not unique to environmental law, but they are principles of environmental law in general. The principles are also found in a number of international environmental treaties to which the UK is a signatory, including the convention on biological diversity, the convention on climate change and the convention on the law of the sea. At present, the UK gives effect to those obligations through its membership of the EU, and particularly through the Lisbon treaty.

As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and the right hon. Member for West Dorset said, the principles play three key roles: they are an aid to the interpretation of the law; they guide future decision making; and they are a basis for legal challenge in court.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion set out in great detail the wide range of areas in which the principles have led to tangible environment improvement benefits. As it stands, the Bill does not ensure that the environmental principles will be recognised and available in domestic law after exit, and as such does not retain those three key roles. The principles are not preserved by clause 4 because they do not confer directly effective rights on individuals. According to the legal advice that I have received, neither do they fall within the definition of the general principles of EU law that are to some extent preserved by the Bill, although the Minister may want to comment on that. Whereas the general principles apply across all EU law, by their very definition some environmental principles apply only to environmental law and policy.

If we are to retain the law we have, to be effective custodians of the environment and to be world leaders when it comes to environmental standards, it is imperative that we embed the principles in the way policy operates. To his credit, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has recognised that. However, the Government have argued that environmental principles are interpretive principles, and that as such they should not form part of the law itself. I argue that the environmental principles are not simply guidance; as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion mentioned, they have been given effect in EU law. Article 11 of the TFEU states:

“Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Union policies and activities, in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development.”

They are, therefore, a vital aid to understanding the role and function of existing legislation, as well as being an interpretative tool for decision makers and, if necessary, the courts.

For the principles to have equivalence on exit day, they must be placed in domestic legislation. I recognise that a consultation on this subject has been announced, but it will not report back before the Bill has progressed through this place. There is good reason to doubt that the direction of travel being signalled by the Government—namely, a reliance on UK case law, judicial review and some form of policy guidance—will do the job, even if all that operates alongside governance arrangements in the form of an as yet undefined watchdog, although the right hon. Member for West Dorset gave some valuable insight into what the Government are thinking in that respect.

UK case law is unlikely to retain and capture the effect of all the principles set out in article 191, as that would limit enforceability to where the principles already exist in case law. It is difficult to see how judicial review, which looks only at the legality of a decision or action rather than its scientific merits, will materially apply core environmental principles. Likewise, reliance on policy guidance—something explicitly referred to by the Secretary of State recently in evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee—is arguably an inadequate basis on which to proceed. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion noted, policy guidance is necessarily limited in scope, but there is a strong case for ensuring that environmental principles apply across Government, informing law as well as policy, to match the rigour of the treaty obligations.

Policy guidance also entails a weaker duty on public bodies: policy statements are only guidelines or material considerations for public bodies to consider, meaning that they are less likely to influence a decision than a strict duty to comply. Policy guidance is impermanent; it is prey to changes resulting from short-term political agendas—under different Ministers and different Governments—and so does not provide long-term certainty, and it lacks the binding character of statute. There should be a clear duty to comply with environmental principles in statute, to match the current strong legal obligation set out in the treaty, and the courts should be able to enforce such a duty.